Resource Library

This white paper focuses on the relationship between SSIP Phases I and II by demonstrating how the theory of action can be used to develop the SSIP evaluation plan and performance indicators that measure progress toward the SIMR.

The purpose of this resource is to unpack Part B SPP/APR Indicator 3D to better understand how to use Indicator 3D results to improve outcomes for all children with IEPs. This resource guides the reader through Indicator 3D, including how to calculate it; information on the setting/resetting of its baselines and targets; and considerations when analyzing, reporting, and using Indicator 3D data. As an aid to deepen learning, this resource includes examples with fictitious data.

Data for Part B Indicator 3 follow a long and complicated process that begins when a student is registered as a test taker in a state assessment system and ends with public reporting via the SPP/APR. Multiple factors are involved in this process, and regular and ongoing communication and collaboration among the various people involved can make this process easier. This suite of four resources can help states with the work. The interactive infographic provides general information about the process for a typical state.

This rubric allows a team of users from a district or school to systematically examine the root causes of success gaps among groups of students by focusing on equity, inclusion, and opportunity. The recently updated rubric now includes considerations for children as young as preschool age. A complementary white paper provided the research-based background that supported development of the rubric.

This resource offers a side-by-side comparison of the SPP/APR Part B indicator measurement tables for FFY 2019 and FFY 2020 to highlight  new SPP/APR reporting requirements and measurement changes to Indicator 3.  The majority of students with disabilities participate in regular statewide assessments, and a small percentage of students with the most significant disabilities participate in alternate assessments. In FFY 2020, OSEP requires states to disaggregate statewide assessment results for these two groups of students with disabilities (i.e., those who participate in the regular assessment and those who participate in the alternate assessment). OSEP also requires states to calculate a “proficiency rate gap” between students with and without disabilities who participate in the regular statewide assessment.   

This resource provides a summary of findings from 28 states’ publicly available LEA determinations processes. States can use this resource to learn more about the data elements, calculation methodologies, and determination category criteria these 28 states used for making LEA determinations. This information can be particularly valuable for those states considering revisions and updates to their own LEA determinations processes.

This Q&A answers essential questions about the Equity in IDEA Final Regulations, including information on the contents of the new rule, the standard methodology, remedies, important dates, and a glossary of terms.